Hi All,
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WAS REFUSED PUBLICATION IN THE "UCO REPORTER"
As I left the Delegate Assembly meeting on July 11, 2008 I met some friends who like myself were disgusted by what we just witnessed.
They suggested that in their and my own behalf I express in writing the utter frustration we felt sitting through the spectacle we as Delegates were compelled to experience.
More about that later.
The only topic discussed was the Sunshine Bylaw and the Administration's attempt to make it useless.
The Sunshine Bylaw was passed by an overwhelming majority of Delegates (116 for - 17 against) in the Delegate Assembly of July 02, 2004.
Early in 2007 I found it useful to remind the Administration of it's existance by publishing an article in the UCO Reporter of January 2007 which clearly cited the 2004 Bylaw in plain English no legalese doubletalk.
All was well until there appeared in the July 2008 UCO Reporter A definition of the Sunshine Bylaw which ran counter to what we passed in 2004.
I was happy to see that in July 11, 2008 Delegate Assembly meeting a vast majority again confirmed the Sunshine Bylaw leaving it virtually intact as an integral part of UCO's laws.
And now: a few observations about the meeting itself-
In my 17 years of active involvement in the affairs of UCO I have never experienced a more insulting way in which the chair addressed both the Delegates and UCO members at large who came to participate in UCO's business.
And what disgusted me more, was the fact that UCO's President did not find it appropriate or necessary to intervene when it became obvious that the way the chair handled his job was beyond acceptable limits of behavior.
Never before and I hope never again after this sorry spectacle shall we be subjected the that kind of rowdy insulting behavior from the top.
This is still the United States and not Zimbabwe.
Whoever is going to replace those among UCO's Officers who submitted their resignation when the vote overwhelmingly went against them will have to do better.
Kurt M. Weiss
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
FREEDOMS PRESERVED
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Right On Kurt
Mike
I can understand Kurt's frustration about those who make the decision about what is published or not in the UCO reporter. Two years ago I submitted an article to be published and it was rejected. What was so frustrating to me was the fact that the theme of my article dealth with freedom of the press. I had challenged the editors of the reporter by questioning the philosophy of their decisions as to what to publish. I quoted parts of John Adams' plea to the jury in the famous Peter Zenger case (which was the first law case about 1st amendment rights and freedom of the press. Unfortunately for me, I was told that my article was religious in nature because Adams had used the word "G-d" and I quoted his argument in my article. I found out later that the person rejecting my article did not read it through and made an arbitrary decision based on what I thought then and still believe now "rooted in ignorance" and bi-partisinship.
Kurt you and I have had some issues about politics in which we strongly disagree. However, as a citizen of this democracy and a resident of CV, your aticle should have been printed. Let the reader decide if they agree or not. They have the option of writing a letter to the editor to challenge your views. I am saddened by those who make the decision as to what to print in OUR UCO PAPER. Censure of the free press has been traditionally the first measure totalitarian regimes take to squash free speach.
To bad for all of us!
correction to the above comment. My article was rejected about 4-5 years ago, not two. Time has not healed by resentment towards those who rejected my article.
Hi All,
This refusal to publish an article by an iconic citizen of our community is not a good sign of change for the better.
All channels of communication in the Village;
1) CVTV Channel 63
2) CV Q & A
3) Email list To be developed
4) This BLOG
5) The UCO Reporter
Must be free from filtered editorial interference.
The UCO Reporter must be an independent Democratic newspaper; utterly free of interference by any Officer of UCO.
The Kurt Weiss article published here is a perfectly reasonable description of the July 11th. Delegate Assembly meeting and it should be published in the UCO Reporter without delay.
Dave Israel
PLEASE tell me who makes the decisions on what should or should NOT be published. Is it one person or a committee???
THANKS
Stewart, I know how you feel (also years ago)sticks in your craw, doesn't it. I tried to alert the Reporter by phone to a dangerous health error (internet hoax) that they repeat published, they ignored a phone call, they ignored a letter for publication, they did not bother to let me know my letter would not be used. I concluded they did not publish anything that showed they had made a mistake, not once but three times. Maybe they were too busy, maybe they were tired, but I never submitted anything again.
Elaine, sorry to hear about your dealings with the Reporter. I have always been treated courteously and friendly by everyone on the staff. I'm sure they will answer any questions regarding why an article was not used. I send articles to the PB Post; if one in five are picked up, I'm grateful. They have never contacted me as to why they refused the others.
Post a Comment